Nunn attorney says he may have to withdraw

By RONNIE ELLIS

LEXINGTON — The attorney for Steve Nunn, the former lawmaker accused of murder in the death of his one-time fiancée Amanda Ross, said in a civil hearing Friday he may have to withdraw as Nunn’s attorney if the judge won’t release funds from an escrow account to pay his legal expenses.

Warren Scoville told Fayette Circuit Judge James Ishmael that if $137,000 net proceeds from the sale of Nunn’s Glasgow home are not released to pay Scoville’s fees and expenses, he may have to withdraw from case.

“Everybody’s entitled to hire a lawyer and frankly the way we’re going, we’ll have to withdraw,” Scoville said. “If (the money) is not released, I just can’t go forward.”

Nunn, 57, is accused of shooting to death the 29-year-old Ross outside her Lexington townhouse on Sept. 11. He transferred his home in Glasgow to the Scoville Law Firm to pay his legal expenses, but the Ross family filed a wrongful death civil suit against Nunn. When Scoville put the property up for sale by auction, Ross’ mother Diana Ross got a court order to have any proceeds placed in escrow and subsequently claimed Nunn fraudulently transferred the property to Scoville in part to protect it from the civil suit.

This week, Ross amended the complaint to name Scoville and Nunn’s oldest daughter, Mary Nunn, as defendants, alleging Nunn improperly transferred personal property to his daughter.

Lucy Pett, of Stohl, Keenon Ogden which represents the Ross family in the civil suit, told Ishmael Nunn has a state retirement account estimated in value of more than $500,000 which is immune from the suit by statute and Nunn chose to convey the home in Glasgow to protect it from the Ross family. (That figure is based on actuarial tables and the assumption Nunn doesn’t access it until retirement age of 62. He would face a penalty if he began drawing it sooner.)

“We also know (the retirement) is protected by state statute,” Pett told Ishmael. “Mr. Nunn knows that as well and that’s why he chose to use his assets to pay his counsel.”

Scoville countered that he was unaware of how much money Nunn had in his retirement account when he agreed to represent Nunn and there was nothing fraudulent about the transfer of the home to his law firm to pay Nunn’s legal expenses.

“Judge, this was done in the broad daylight. We had a public auction and they knew about it,” Scoville said.

Scoville told Ishmael he expects to spend around $70,000 for expert witnesses in Nunn’s defense and asked the judge to allow him to draw against the escrow funds under the court’s supervision.

He also raised issues of ethical conflicts for himself in representing Nunn in the criminal matter while defending himself and Nunn in the civil case; jury selection in light of pre-trial publicity; and Nunn’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. He asked Ishmael to delay the civil suit until the criminal procedure is complete. Pett responded that the likely capital crime and appeals could take years and the Ross family shouldn’t be prevented from pursuing their civil action during that time.

Ishmael didn’t rule on any of the issues except to continue the escrow account until he gathered more information about Nunn’s retirement fund. But he expressed concern about proceeding with the civil suit while Nunn faces a potential capital murder charge.

“If I don’t hold the (civil procedure) in abeyance, what would you propose going forward regarding Mr. Nunn’s rights under the Fifth Amendment?” he asked Pett. Pett said Nunn would not be prevented from invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate himself.

Ultimately, Ishmael gave Scoville until Dec. 11 to submit arguments on the several legal questions and Pett until Dec. 21 to respond. He set a hearing date on the matter for Jan. 12 at 9 a.m.

RONNIE ELLIS writes for CNHI News Service and is based in Frankfort. Reach him at rellis(at)cnhi.com. Follow CNHI News Service stories on Twitter at www.twitter.com/cnhifrankfort.

Text Only